I get that, and my point isn't so much against Flash, my issue is the encode. If WebM was just a wrapper, there would be less of an issue... I can still output an mp4, change the extenuation and link it (as you can with F4V, h.264 for flash player). The statistics I've seen from Ars Technica show WebM as inferior to H.264 as an encode, never mind how bad ogg is @ handling video (that's why no one uses it). I'm saying taking out an encode everyone uses, scales beautifully while having a conservative data footprint all while being a full fledge standard — for something no one can use yet hasn't been standardized and rests SOLELY in google's hands sounds BEYOND fishy.
" WebM does provide a long-term guarantee. Users benefit long term."
No, it doesn't just a "promise" by Google in their word (which is seeing it's value drop recently). There is no one else involved to hold them to it. it can change next year. At least with h.264, an agreement is in place till 2015. They didn't have to drop support before maturing their own format. And let's not kid ourselves, it's THEIRS not OURS.
I disagree. I have Click to Flash as well as the YouTube5 safari extension so I can notably see when something is h.264 or flash and a lot of it on YouTube is h.264... infect the few times I have Click to Flash kick in is for smaller, older lower quality clips.
I don't run into ogg. like ever. Nor are there settings in Final Cut for VP8 encoding export. This brings up two question.
1. Is this good for video professionals both in terms of work flow and video quality? and...
2. Does one entity deciding the course of video online bode well for anyone?
On that last question, people may comment that Apple is the one forcing h.264, but that's not the case, since they are part of a consortium of companies on board the spec, which is standardized.
Sexual acts and Sexual Orientation are two separate things, don't let the name similarities fool you. When referring to Marriage, as is with this case, we are talking about monogamy. You don't choose you fall in love with. You can choose to go against your orientation for an act, but you can't lie about who you love... that's a horrible life to lead.
Wow, I'm not even sure where to start... That you are equating Gays to murderers, that you called me a loser, that you think I in some way said the being Gay is a "birth defect" or the suspicion I have that you didn't read my post at all — or maybe it just went over your head (sorry for the last one but you did verbally attack me unprovoked).
First off I never said being Gay was hereditary — or that it was something passed along as a role to fill. Most GLBT people I know don't have GLBT parents so there goes that concept. What I ACTUALLY said was that if you are a man who loves another person who happen to be a man you can no sooner change that truth than you can permanently and meaningfully change your hair colour, you can lie to yourself and deny it, but you're roots will show. You are attributing gays as being somehow less-than (quote: "Who are you to tell people they can't be straight or that they were born with some kind of unnatural issues that cannot be rectified?") — like they NEED to change. No. They don't. They are loving, caring, thinking, responsible, fallible — human... in every way shape and form — for better or worse. The issue is they are contrary to the society's status quo and people want them changed or silenced (remain in the closet). In case you haven't figured out I don't feel that way and I think they should be accepted and embraced, with all the rights and privileges everyone else has.
Also, calling Me a loser was beyond unnecessary. I disagreed with a lot of what people have written in these comments, and while I addressed what they said (in my "lifestyle choice" paragraph) I never called individuals out, nor berated them. That is not a civilized debate. I respond to you directly in hopes that you can see that what you thought I said polar opposite to what I wrote and I decided to break it down for you in smaller, easily digestible chunks — lest you misunderstand them again.
-Roberto, apparently reporting from under a rock.
p.s. — my first sentence in my first post erroneously said "... Bile" but the sentence should have read "Why are people comparing the Manhattan Declaration to the Bible? ". My apologies for any confusion.
Why are people comparing the Manhattan Declaration to the Bile? It's not remotely the same thing. While some views expressed in the Bible can find parallels found in the MD (depending on context and frame of mind of the reader), it — in its self, is not any sort of Holy text like the Bible or the Quran. It is merely activist material some people share beliefs with, and I do not mean that with disrespect to those who share those views, just stating fact.
While we are on fact, I have personal issue with a theme I see in a lot of these comments — that being Gay is a "lifestyle choice". Let's be clear. It is not. In our current society no one would ever "choose" to be gay. Seriously, who would "choose" to be part of a group in which their name is constantly used as a term for "unacceptable"? To be a part of a group constantly under the fear or violence, marginalization, alienation and self-loathing. That is not to say that there are not those who wear the term Gay proudly — but that is done more as a stand against what one would endure should they come out, rather than any concept of "flaunting" or worse, "recruiting". The only choice that is made is whither to continue lying to yourself for the sake of some of your family and acceptance of people you don't even know or to take a shot at being honest and happy. That's a personal decision and shouldn't involve anyone else.
With that said, any time we restrict the rights of any group to happy, free and to live a life that harms no one if it fails but themselves and considers them a failing to our society is hate speech. It is. It's not opinion, that's fact. You may not like it but that doesn't matter some things you just don't get a say in. How people lead their lives has nothing to do with you until it has something to do with you. That may not be what people want to hear, and I'm sorry to disappoint you but its best if people stick to managing their own home and leave others alone.
Since creatives have long been at the root of Mac loyalty and make up a large portion of the Mac base, this should be expected. I do, and that is one of the reasons I come here. With that in mind, ever since Adobe bought up all the creative applications for the mac that it (or Apple) didn't own, Adobe will always be tied to the Mac platform due to the creative community. This doesn't have anything to do with Flash. It wasn't even mentioned in the article... back under your bridge, troll.
MacBook Pro updated: Faster CPUs, Radeon HD, Thunderbolt, and more
Feb 24th 2011 10:03AM (TUAW.com)Google nixes direct H.264 support in Chrome
Jan 13th 2011 4:18PM (TUAW.com)I get that, and my point isn't so much against Flash, my issue is the encode. If WebM was just a wrapper, there would be less of an issue... I can still output an mp4, change the extenuation and link it (as you can with F4V, h.264 for flash player). The statistics I've seen from Ars Technica show WebM as inferior to H.264 as an encode, never mind how bad ogg is @ handling video (that's why no one uses it). I'm saying taking out an encode everyone uses, scales beautifully while having a conservative data footprint all while being a full fledge standard — for something no one can use yet hasn't been standardized and rests SOLELY in google's hands sounds BEYOND fishy.
Google nixes direct H.264 support in Chrome
Jan 13th 2011 11:22AM (TUAW.com)" WebM does provide a long-term guarantee. Users benefit long term."
No, it doesn't just a "promise" by Google in their word (which is seeing it's value drop recently). There is no one else involved to hold them to it. it can change next year. At least with h.264, an agreement is in place till 2015. They didn't have to drop support before maturing their own format. And let's not kid ourselves, it's THEIRS not OURS.
Google nixes direct H.264 support in Chrome
Jan 13th 2011 11:15AM (TUAW.com)I don't run into ogg. like ever. Nor are there settings in Final Cut for VP8 encoding export. This brings up two question.
1. Is this good for video professionals both in terms of work flow and video quality? and...
2. Does one entity deciding the course of video online bode well for anyone?
On that last question, people may comment that Apple is the one forcing h.264, but that's not the case, since they are part of a consortium of companies on board the spec, which is standardized.
On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
Dec 2nd 2010 4:56PM (TUAW.com)Sexual acts and Sexual Orientation are two separate things, don't let the name similarities fool you. When referring to Marriage, as is with this case, we are talking about monogamy. You don't choose you fall in love with. You can choose to go against your orientation for an act, but you can't lie about who you love... that's a horrible life to lead.
On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
Dec 2nd 2010 4:50PM (TUAW.com)Wow, I'm not even sure where to start... That you are equating Gays to murderers, that you called me a loser, that you think I in some way said the being Gay is a "birth defect" or the suspicion I have that you didn't read my post at all — or maybe it just went over your head (sorry for the last one but you did verbally attack me unprovoked).
First off I never said being Gay was hereditary — or that it was something passed along as a role to fill. Most GLBT people I know don't have GLBT parents so there goes that concept. What I ACTUALLY said was that if you are a man who loves another person who happen to be a man you can no sooner change that truth than you can permanently and meaningfully change your hair colour, you can lie to yourself and deny it, but you're roots will show. You are attributing gays as being somehow less-than (quote: "Who are you to tell people they can't be straight or that they were born with some kind of unnatural issues that cannot be rectified?") — like they NEED to change. No. They don't. They are loving, caring, thinking, responsible, fallible — human... in every way shape and form — for better or worse. The issue is they are contrary to the society's status quo and people want them changed or silenced (remain in the closet). In case you haven't figured out I don't feel that way and I think they should be accepted and embraced, with all the rights and privileges everyone else has.
Also, calling Me a loser was beyond unnecessary. I disagreed with a lot of what people have written in these comments, and while I addressed what they said (in my "lifestyle choice" paragraph) I never called individuals out, nor berated them. That is not a civilized debate. I respond to you directly in hopes that you can see that what you thought I said polar opposite to what I wrote and I decided to break it down for you in smaller, easily digestible chunks — lest you misunderstand them again.
-Roberto, apparently reporting from under a rock.
p.s. — my first sentence in my first post erroneously said "... Bile" but the sentence should have read "Why are people comparing the Manhattan Declaration to the Bible? ". My apologies for any confusion.
On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
Dec 2nd 2010 1:58PM (TUAW.com)While we are on fact, I have personal issue with a theme I see in a lot of these comments — that being Gay is a "lifestyle choice". Let's be clear. It is not. In our current society no one would ever "choose" to be gay. Seriously, who would "choose" to be part of a group in which their name is constantly used as a term for "unacceptable"? To be a part of a group constantly under the fear or violence, marginalization, alienation and self-loathing. That is not to say that there are not those who wear the term Gay proudly — but that is done more as a stand against what one would endure should they come out, rather than any concept of "flaunting" or worse, "recruiting". The only choice that is made is whither to continue lying to yourself for the sake of some of your family and acceptance of people you don't even know or to take a shot at being honest and happy. That's a personal decision and shouldn't involve anyone else.
With that said, any time we restrict the rights of any group to happy, free and to live a life that harms no one if it fails but themselves and considers them a failing to our society is hate speech. It is. It's not opinion, that's fact. You may not like it but that doesn't matter some things you just don't get a say in. How people lead their lives has nothing to do with you until it has something to do with you. That may not be what people want to hear, and I'm sorry to disappoint you but its best if people stick to managing their own home and leave others alone.
Adobe gives the sack to Project ROME design app
Nov 30th 2010 10:19AM (TUAW.com)iPhone 4's resolution resolved
Jun 11th 2010 3:10PM (TUAW.com)Yes, I was tired of having to keep low res files in iTunes for playback on my iDevices. Now I can keep one larger file for Screen and portable use...
Handmark and Goal.com team up for free FIFA World Cup 2010 app
Jun 9th 2010 3:07PM (TUAW.com)